I'll respond point by point, as best I can. Consequently, since these forums are rather limited in their abilities, I'll be italicizing your text rather than using a standard quote feature. But be forewarned: I end up using the same response for many of your points.

If the theory disagrees with any of these points it is incompatible with Catholic Doctrine.Roger that. Let's roll.

God created everything in its whole substance from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.Right. The big bang theory does not contradict this. Science, being a natural discipline, is limited to studying nature. Nature is quite broad and diverse, but we can only study nature with science. Science is incapable of studying supernature, and it is also incapable of studying "nothing" (since "nothing" is not-nature).

But once God created something, that's the point at which we can start studying things. We can't use science to determine what things were like before God's Fiat lux, since there wasn't anything to study, but after that, everything is fair game. God made us a part of this universe, and He gave us the faculties to understand it through experimental trial and error.

To reiterate, the big bang theory does not contradict this. However, if you think it does, please provide examples.

Genesis does not contain purified myths.Oh...kay? Sure. I don't see what you mean by this, nor how it can apply to the topic at hand, so I can't give you a good response to this. Sorry.Genesis contains real history it gives an account of things that really happened.The big bang theory does not contradict this. If you believe it does, please feel free to give examples, and I will respond to them as best as I can.Adam and Eve were real human beings the first parents of all mankind.The big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not where humans came from. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Polygenism (many first parents) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned.The big bang theory says nothing about ploygenism and therefore does not contradict Scripture and tradition. It deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not where humans came from. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)The beginning of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the FallThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not where humans came from or our fall from Grace. If you believe it does, please feel free to give examples, and I will respond to them as best as I can.The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adams bodyThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not where humans came from. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requiresUm, sure? Okay. I don't see how the big bang theory would disagree with this, but if you think it does, please give examples.Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedientThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not the state of the land into which Adam and Eve were created, nor their initial immortality. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen manThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not the nature of our first parents' punishment, nor how its debt would be paid. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and EveThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not Original Sin or its origin. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve.The big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Although, interestingly, this could be the reason for the existence of the second law of thermodynamics; to wit, entropy always increases in a closed system.

We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or moralsI'll combine this point with the next one, since I presume you intended for these two to go together, even though this has nothing to do with morals, and very likely has nothing to do with faith. (Believing that God created the universe out of nothing is faith. Believing that stars are made up of various gases and other elements, undergoing nuclear fusion, and that stars, planets, planetoids, comets, asteroids, nebulae, and other stellar objects are made up of the same or similar elements is natural reasoning.)

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.This is where things get fun.

Remember what I said earlier about science being unable to understand not-nature? Well, apparently even nature had a point where it wasn't what we know now. There was apparently a point in time where the laws of physics as we know/understand them today did not exist. Sine our tools were built using the laws we're familiar with, and since the universe back then didn't play by the same rules, we have a hard time measuring things that far back.

One thing we do know, however, is that, since time and space are inseparable, if the three physical dimensions did not operate as we know them, then the fourth dimension (time) did not operate the same way, either.

As an example, let's take a balloon. A really big balloon. One that would be, oh, three feet in diameter when fully inflated. Then, let's take a piece of string that is three inches long, lay it on the balloon in a "meridian" fashion (that is, if the balloon is a globe, with the knot being the south pole, we're laying the string to be in line with the imaginary lines [meridians] connecting the balloon's "south pole" with its "north pole"). Now, take a marker and make two dots on the balloon - one at each end of the string. Label one Point A, the other Point B, and the distance between them equals X.

With that done, remove the string, and carefully deflate the balloon without popping it. Once all the air is out, find the dots, and compare them with the length of the string. From the string's perspective, (and ours, of course), the dots will be closer together. However, from the balloon's perspective, the dots are just as far apart as they have always been - Point A to Point B equals Distance X.

Now, with that metaphor out of the way, let's take that string, make it measure time rather than distance, and make it "one day" long. (You may define "one day" as you see fit, whether it be the colloquial usage, a solar day, a stellar day, etc.) Since we made this day-long string today, (while the balloon was inflated), it perfectly matches up with how we see the passage of a day.

If, however, we were able to convince an objective observer to take this string back to the beginning of time and overlay our "one day" long string on top of the early universe, we could see that time is more compressed than we perceive it now (on the inflated balloon), and many days (or perhaps years, or hundreds of years, or thousands of years, or millions of years) exist in the same measurement of our "one day" long string in the early universe (or the deflated balloon).

To us, a second is a second, a day is a day, and a year is a year. To the early universe, a second is a second, a day is a day, and a year is a year. But if we were to take a tool calibrated to our measurement of time and overlaid it on the early universe while retaining our calibration, we would likely see discrepancies.

(Now, admittedly, the Planck epoch probably lasted for all of 10^-43 seconds before things started stabilizing, but that doesn't mean time at 10^-42 seconds operated precisely as we measure it today.)

So, yeah. The big bang theory does not contradict this.The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created except for each human rational soul at conceptionThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris. (Also, see my previous response.) Additionally, nothing "new" is being made, according to the big bang theory; rather, anything "new" is simply constructed from already-existing stuff.St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the ArkThe big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not the deluge. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption.The big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not Noah's ark. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.The big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not evolution. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)Investigation into human evolution was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.The big bang theory does not contradict this, since it deals with how the universe came to be, and how it became populated with stars, planets, and other space debris, not evolution. (Nor is this topic mentioned in the linked audio.)

I found an interesting theory concerning polygenesis vs. monogenesis. Homo erectus (or one of the other Homo species) had already populated a large amount of area and that Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens. This would appear to resolve the origin of Cain's wife who would otherwise have to be a daughter of Adam and Eve. Having Cain's wife as the daughter of Adam and Eve would mean that the early genesis of the human race was accomplished through incest.

(quote) Alex-789274 said: I found an interesting theory concerning polygenesis vs. monogenesis. Homo erectus (or one of the other Homo species) had already populated a large amount of area and that Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens. This would appear to resolve the origin of Cain's wife who would otherwise have to be a daughter of Adam and Eve. Having Cain's wife as the daughter of Adam and Eve would mean that the early genesis of the human race was accomplished through incest.

http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Huh. Neat. I'll have to take a look at that when I get a chance.

On a related note, Neil Gaiman (one of my favorite authors), had an idea he used in one of his stories. In it, Cain and Abel each had a fraternal twin sister who became the spouse of the other brother. (All four are still brothers and sisters, but by not being a fraternal twin, there could have been a perceived difference between the siblings.) I've often thought that Genesis probably only names the important early humans, either because of some accomplishment or characteristic that set them apart from everyone else - Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Seth, Methuselah - or to show a genealogy to a certain important later figure - Noah and his family. With that thought, it would make sense that there might be daughters of Adam & Eve who went unnamed.

On the incest part, we're all related, so in a way anyone who procreates these days is incestuous. And from a certain angle, one could say Adam had children with his twin. However, in all seriousness, this may not have been an issue back at the start. It's a problem these days because, without genetic diversity, mutations that are detrimental to the development of a human body can arise during gestation. In the past, there have been records indicating that people as close as first cousins would marry and have children, but in the US, I believe the law currently sets the demarcation point at sixth cousins. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Early humanity lived for hundreds of years, Methuselah for over 960 years. Humans were not created to wither and die. This is attributed to the preternatural gifts of Adam & Eve, which of course were taken away due to Original Sin. But while their children were not born with all of the preternatural gifts, obviously some of it was passed on to their offspring. The story of Noah getting drunk could suggest that, before Noah, alcohol did not impair human physiology, and the echo of the preternatural gift that gave humanity its hardiness weakened with Noah to the point that alcohol would impair him. (Perhaps he was unique among all of humanity during his time to have this impairment, but didn't know he had this weakness until after the flood. Since we're all descended from him, we all got that impairment. We'll probably never know the answer to that.)

Anyhow, it's also possible that this preternatural gift also prevented the genetic mutations that arise from close relatives procreating with each other. While Noah may have had a weakness to alcohol, his line was still strong enough to be able to procreate with a small pool of genetic samples. Not as strong as Adam & Eve and their immediate children, since everyone at that point were siblings (and Noah's children had spouses who could have been genetically quite distant, relatively speaking). But Noah and his sons must have been hardy enough in this area that four pairs of humans could eventually bring the total population to its current number of over seven billion.

(quote) Hunter-996560 said: I'll respond point by point, as best I can. Consequently, since these forums are rather limited in their abilities, I'll be italicizing your text rather than using a standard quote feature. But be forewarned: I end up using the same response for many of your points.

I did use the same response a lot also for yours.

First of all science as all tools if used appropriately
is a good gift. Using science to come up with a natural explanation of the universe
to free us of the God delusion is not a good use. Some things even though they
occur cannot be explained away by natural science, especially if they have a
supernatural cause. The universe beginning is a supernatural cause as you
pointed out thus natural science cannot extrapolate back. Just because
something is created does not mean science can explain how it came to exist in
the universe. An example would be the conception of Christ.

First off the big bang hypothesis (no
experimentation has been done that proves the whole theory.) says that it violates
current natural laws to accomplish the creation of the universe. If God had to
follow natural science why would he violate it? An example would be unorganized
matter does not randomly organize. Also big bang violates laws of logic which
violates science by saying when no matter existed supper dense matter exploded to
produce the universe. Law of noncontradiction, which without no science can be performed.
That is one of the hypotheses of what caused the big bang there are several
since as you pointed out they cannot tell what happened since science cannot
deal with things beyond space, matter and time. If you mean a different one
please name the beginning process.

Genesis contains real history it gives an account of
things that really happened. The big band does contradict this as it also
provides how all planets came together including the earth. According to the
big bang earth was a molten ball of lava for a billion years.

Adam and Eve were real human beings the first parents
of all mankind. The big band contradicts this as pointed out by a quip from an atheist
scientist you need not Jesus to die for you but stars. The big bang can only
explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means
for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements. This is
why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist
explanation of the existence of the universe and man. If you believe in the big
bang and not evolution then you would be the first person Ive meet that has
not drawn the conclusion from big bang to theistic evolution. This goes to the Polygenism
point also. It also deals with the body of Eve since the two hypotheses are
always connected.

Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise
and would not have known death if they had remained obedient. The big band does
contradict this as it gives an account of how the earth came to be not just
other planets. This is why it is always associated with evolution. It claims
earth was molten ball of lava, some miraculous natural way created an atmosphere
and rained washed rocks and which formed the first living things which lead to
man. There was no earthly paradise.

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were
banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would
subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man. The big band contradicts this as
pointed out above and by a quip from an atheist scientist you need not Jesus
to die for you but stars. The big bang can only explain how light elements (hydrogen,
helium, and trace amounts of lithium) came into existence not the heavy ones.
This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver
elements. This is why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist
explanation of the existence of the universe and man.

Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from
Adam and Eve. The big bang contradicts this because everything first thing had
to die to get to the earth. All stars had to supernova to get heaver elements.
It also goes along with this The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin
of disobedience by Adam and Eve. If everything was exploding and dying, what is
different? The punishment for sin is death. This is why Jesus had to die for
us. Yes, it could explain entropy but why believe a hypothesis that violates it.
The universe of the big bang would have had to become better organized not
less. Thus it would have had to violate entropy and reduce entropy, thus
violating natural science.

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed
that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.

First of all you said it might not have been 24
hours. I agree, but Moses was told 24 hours the father of the church concur. So,
it could actual be 24 hours. Why, change when science cannot as you pointed out
tell how long the days where. Why not listen to the author of time himself.
Also, if science cannot know what times is because the universe might work
different, than a hypothesis based off of uniformitarianism is of no use because
maybe the same physics laws that apply today dont apply back then. In case you
have not heard the ancient Egyptians counted in the millions and ten millions. Thus,
Moses would not be surprised by millions of years, so God had no reason to tell
Moses 24 hour days for Mosess poor understanding. Besides if God would let us
in on the Holy Trinity, which according to St. Augustine we cannot fully comprehend
on this earth why withhold the time it took to create for mans poor
understanding? So, I do not believe these are good reason to doubt the church
fathers. If you want to talk about light, light is not fully understood. This
is also a problem for the big bang because the universe is the same temp and it
should be all different temps based off of light speeds and age for the big
bang to be correct. Thus the big bang also contradicts The work of Creation
was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been
created except for each human rational soul at conception, if the days are
actual days which as you have said they could have been. Since this is the case
it could be six 24 hours days thus the big bang contradicts this on the whim of
scientist who want to explain away the existence of the universe as nature
making nature, while violating natural laws without given any evidence of how
that happens just belief.

St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament
confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and
destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds
of non-human creatures aboard the Ark

The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded
as most important in typology, as central to Redemption.

The big bang does contradict this as I pointed out
early it also gives how the earth came to be not just other planets, stars, etc.
This is why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist
explanation of the existence of the universe and man. This is why it is always
associated with evolution. It claims earth was molten ball of lava, some miraculous
natural way earth created an atmosphere, then rained and washed rocks, which
formed the first living things which lead to man. Interestingly the first scientists
to propose a long age earth did so with wanting to free geology from Noahs
flood not from any evidence. This is where the layer date methods came from for rocks,
which was proven wrong.

Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead
the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.

Again yes it does, it does not deal with only other
planets but ours as well. Which includes evolution and how the earth became
ripe for habitable for life and how life came to be.

This topic is a question of origins and is why I
posted what the church teaches on them. I fail to see why I should trust
scientists who would lie to free me from my God delusion which is the stated
goal of most of the prominent teachers/ believers of the big bang hypothesis. Like
the homosexual gene discover or Haeckels human embryos with gills. Scientists
who are atheists and agnostic have no reason not to lie if it means it will
help free people from the God delusion and advance free society. Any scientist
should take a look at what the assumption of the scientists are when they
approach the evidence and the scientist claims of the evidence. No, person is neutral
to anything especially not scientists. Example: if you completely rule out
creationism before looking at the evidence are you really neutral? No, you are not
and any interpretation of the evidence will be a natural one no matter what the
evidence is. Am I surprised that scientist who completely rule out creation
come up with a natural answers even if it defies current scientific
understanding and even if the challengers to the hypotheses cannot be corrected,
no. The big bang is one of many hypotheses that have emerged since Einstein
destroyed the steady state universe theory should have been a hypothesis to
natural explain the universe's existence. This is not the only one because the
big bang hypothesis has holes and other scientists have provided other natural explanations
with more holes to cover the big bang holes. Thus the big bang with fewer holes is
most widely accepted now.

I also believe creationism is a hypothesis since we
cannot do any repeatable experiments. Thus everything on origins is a
hypothesis because the whole theory cannot be tested. Scientists have been
giving origins topics names of theories to make them sound proven which they
are not. I would say that in the current understanding of science creationism
has more science backing. Like not violating information science, entropy, and
earths magnetic field and magnetic fields of all planets in our solar system
having young magnetic fields.

(quote) Alex-789274 said: I found an interesting theory concerning polygenesis vs. monogenesis. Homo erectus (or one of the other Homo species) had already populated a large amount of area and that Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens. This would appear to resolve the origin of Cain's wife who would otherwise have to be a daughter of Adam and Eve. Having Cain's wife as the daughter of Adam and Eve would mean that the early genesis of the human race was accomplished through incest.

http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

Consanguinous marriage in what is now prohibited degrees was not prohibited at the origin of man, and even after the fall for some period of time. It was not the sin of incest at the time to take one's sister to wife. Even Abraham married his half-sister without sin.

Beyond that, all humans are descended from Adam, and we all contract the original sin from generation from Adam. If Cain's wife was from some collateral line of descendence, she would not have been fallen, but rather in original justice. This isn't possible in light of the canons on original sin from the Council of Trent.

I agree with your initial assessment to Bernard's "link". He has a habit on latching onto flawed presentations; then refuses to own up to the "opinions" he spreads with it while just hiding behind the moniker "just reporting". He will usually answer questions directed at him with another "link", oftentimes switching the topic.

I agree with your initial assessment to Bernard's "link". He has a habit on latching onto flawed presentations; then refuses to own up to the "opinions" he spreads with it while just hiding behind the moniker "just reporting". He will usually answer questions directed at him with another "link", oftentimes switching the topic.

(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Beyond that, all humans are descended from Adam, and we all contract the original sin from generation from Adam. If Cain's wife was from some collateral line of descendence, she would not have been fallen, but rather in original justice. This isn't possible in light of the canons on original sin from the Council of Trent.

Humans are homo sapiens. The aforementioned theory would put Cain's wife as Homo Erectus (or another Homo species), which may have been able to interbreed with Homo Sapiens. In that case we would need neither polygenesis nor incest to create the human race, but there would not be humans that do not descend from Adam. As Homo erectus (and other Homo species) were not known about at the time of the Council of Trent, the Church had no question to address.

Consanguinous marriage in what is now prohibited degrees was not prohibited at the origin of man, and even after the fall for some period of time. It was not the sin of incest at the time to take one's sister to wife.

The prohibition was not revealed and made explicit at the time; however, that does not mean it did not exist. It would be problematic for God to need the human race to be propagated in a manner that would later be a sin.